R. Kelly’s lawyers have been trying to free the convicted sex criminal, and in their latest attempt, they did the love slide all the way up to the Supreme Court. According to CNN, Robert Sylvester Kelly argued he was wrongly prosecuted based on a 2003 federal law which extends the statute of limitations for sex crimes with minors.
Suggested Reading
Bad news just hit the disgraced musical icon, who is currently serving over 30 years in a prison cell for sex crimes. Kelly was hoping the Supreme Court of the United States would throw him a bone and simply hear out his appeal attempt, but on Monday (Oct. 7), they declined to move forward with the motion.
To refresh your memory, Kelly was found guilty in Sept. 2022 of three counts of coercing minors into sexual activity and three of producing sex tapes involving a minor, according to The New York Times. He was later sentenced to 20 years in a Chicago court. But a judge ruled he could serve out his term congruently with his 30-year sentence from Sept. 2021 for racketeering and sex trafficking.
In the latest appeal, Kelly’s lawyers argued since the accused crimes mostly took place before the 2003 expansion of the statute of limitations, he should not be affected. One of Kelly’s lawyers, Jennifer Bonjean, said “Retroactive application of the 2003 amendment not only fly in the face of congressional intent.” She continued, “It violates notions of fundamental fairness.”
The argument clearly wasn’t strong enough to move the nation’s highest court. And like usual, the Supreme Court didn’t give any reasons on exactly why they refuse to hear Kelly’s case, according to BillBoard. At this point, we’re sure Kelly wishes he could turn back the hands of time, but this Supreme Court ruling still stands, and he will consequently remain in prison.
If you forgot, this isn’t the first time the “Ignition” singer tried to appeal his guilty verdicts. After his first appeal, a judge affirmed his conviction, telling him to bounce, bounce, bounce back to his cell.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said earlier this year, “As a threshold matter, it is not unconstitutional to apply a newer statute of limitations to old conduct when the defendant was subject to prosecution at the time of the change, as Kelly was in 2003.”
With Monday’s Supreme Court decision basically finalizing Kelly’s 20-year sentence, he can only hope to overturn his 30-year conviction at a later time.
Straight From 
Sign up for our free daily newsletter.